Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry

[Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Greetings,

Would anyone be willing to comment on the summary below (affirmative or
otherwise)?  Do we think that it accurately reflects where we stand
right now, from a high-level perspective?

Thanks,
Joe

Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> I've taken a shot summarizing the various aspects of this discussion to
> date, to serve as a sort of "checkpoint" of where we are at.  Below I've
> listed 5 high-level topics (in no particular order) that I think have
> grown out of our excellent discussions here, and a very high-level
> snapshot of where we appear to be regarding that topic.
> 
> I hope this information is helpful for all, and look forward to feedback
> on its accuracy.  I will be happy to update this summary as necessary so
> that we ensure that we capture the picture accurately for all.
> 
> TOPIC #1 - Representation Within Registry (Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic):
> 
> - Most seem to favor extrinsic representation, with a defined binding to
> the registry;
> 
> - Question remains as to who would create such a binding – our TC, the
> CCTS Team, or a combination (us “consulting” to them and them having a
> liaison on our TC);
> 
> - Can use Content Management mechanism and create a style sheet indexer
> for Core Component entities;
> 
> TOPIC #2 - Context/Assembly:
> 
> - Can be defined by the CAM TC, as this is their focus;
> 
> TOPIC #3 - Serialization Format:
> 
> - Can be defined by our TC(?), perhaps using CRI as a starting point;
> 
> - David Webbers's "Registry Enabling of Business Metadata Semantics"
> presentation offers excellent concepts for serialization as well as
> context/assembly;
> 
> - CCTS team would not need to be involved in the definition of the
> seralization format, because they define the syntax-neutral
> representation of Core Components, not the syntax-specific
> representations;
> 
> TOPIC #4 - Core Components Specification:
> 
> - It is possible that we may request updates to the Core Components
> specification based on our review of it;
> 
> - We will need to decide how to communicate our requests to the CCTS
> Team and work with them toward a solution that is beneficial for all
> parties;
> 
> TOPIC #5 - Timing:
> 
> - Regardless of what Registry specification version this is included in,
> we believe it would take at least 4 months (probably closer to 6) to
> define the registry metadata representations (whether intrinsic or
> extrinsic), context/assembly, and serialization format.
> 
> - It is still to be determined if this functionality will be included in
> the Registry V3 specs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe

Attachment: Chiusano_Joseph.vcf
Description: Card for Joseph Chiusano